507 replies to this topic

[JP]

they had the trajectory and splash damage right. They screwed everything up with this patch. Obviously wasted dev money went into "re writing" the LRM code.

All they needed to do was up the damage to 0.8 from 0.7.

[jakucha]

Psikez, on 21 May 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

LRM apocalypse is a quarterly event.

PGI is just trolling us now.

This is no where near as bad as the actual LRM apocalypse.

Edited by jakucha, 21 May 2013 - 11:46 PM.

[Seelenlos]

Hi,

some nice posts here, but rest are too much flame-wars here.
I thought it is a feedback thread...

So my feedback:

- LRM must "rain", period! The never hit one position, they never hit 100%, they only 10-60% without additional equipments and some special conditions!
Therefor the smart LRM-20-warrior take -1 PPC/LL and invests in +1 TAG/Artemis to have 13 to 17 of his missiles hit.
And if he has a lucky day and an enemy Warrior is reading his Mech-Manual in his cockpit (meaning he is standing still) he gets a 20 hit on head and shoulder areas.

- LRMs do not need splash damage, because the LRM-Boats have enough Ammo to kill an opponent, IF they have TAG-SUPPORT. So give them their 1 damage point without splash damage.

- and this is what will/must FORCE Light- and Medium-Mechs to suffer one Laser-Hardpoint for 1x TAG or else their team of 4x LRM-CATs or Stalkers are still ruined by an ECM equipped team.

The same LRM-Warrior also relies on his team-mates as they are also that smart and have always a TAG- oder NARC equipped in their mechs............(all you readers and Devs understand the hint? force Scouts to equit a TAG or NARC. It is their role !)

- LRMs needs only a "little" fix to allow the cover bonus for indirect-fire, but still allow a LRM-Boat to make artillery support (blind firing an area) as in table top game (give them a trajectory view in HUD)

- Give LRMs the Mine-Ammunition

regards

[Lindonius]

Kilo 40, on 21 May 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

the amount of entitlement oozing out of this thread is simply amazing.

But the numbers of people who don't seem to understand that this game is beta, and WE are the testers, is even more amazing.

Yeah it's amazing how tetchy people can get when something that they've paid money for doesn't work.

[Karl Split]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

That is all, i'll be in my Stalker till they fix this godawful mess

[Chairman Meow]

Well overall this is pretty much TT style where cover does not help against IDF at all but there should be a penalty on AoE damage depending on if the Spotter is "walking", "running" or jumping. Another Option would be making the missiles follow the TAG and impact where it points.
TT wise the CT is the most probable hit location which makes sense but it needs to be toned down.

Also against poptarding it might help to increase the targetlock time after using JJs.

Anyhow I don't get all the whining and really hope they will just adjust the flightpath slightly.
I mostly run ballistic builds and forcing a decent amount of AMSs on a team isn't that bad.

Will take a while until all weapons have their proper role.

[BladeXXL]

And again QQ ... some stupid guys expect a mellow product in beta. Your are BETA-TESTER! -.-

btw.: I was killed by a small laser -> NERF IT!

And again QQ ... some stupid guys expect a mellow product in beta. Your are BETA-TESTER! -.-

btw.: I was killed by a small laser -> NERF IT!

[Rushin Roulette]

Cole Allard, on 21 May 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

Dunno guys,

LRM's have allways been a part of Battletech and Mechwarrior. Whats your problem?

Since yesterday's patch we see LRM throwers again, didnt you notice that we didnt see any before? Maybe 1 every 2 matches or so.

Now you have like 1 or 2 per match who dont use LRMs, thats a fair trade. Of course, you dont take yesterday, the patchday, for example. Everybody tryed them out yesterday.

Corrected that for you .

[BladeXXL]

And again QQ ... some stupid guys expect a mellow product in beta. Your are BETA-TESTER! -.-

btw.: I was killed by a small laser -> NERF IT!

[Kmieciu]

Advanced Target Decay = 3.5 seconds. LRM speed: 120 meters/second.

That means if I target someone inside 420 meters, the missiles will hit him, no mater if he hides behind cover or not.

The only safe places to hide is under bridges or in tunnels.

[MrTarget]

I agree that the angle of the LRM's are bit vicious, but remove that and the splash damage and I think that they will be pretty spot on.

As of the PGI bashing, please stop it. They make the game, you do not. If you know how to make the game, and by that I mean code it better then they can, stop your harsh criticism. They are doing there job try, helping them by offering constructive feedback not the hate that is spewed in these feedback threads.

Edited by MrTarget, 22 May 2013 - 12:15 AM.

[Thorqemada]

aniviron, on 21 May 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Needs more than just a trajectory change.

ROFL - A Testing Ground Video

Do you know that the Testing Ground does not give an appropriate picture of weapon damage?
Missiles do 2 to 5 times the damage than they do in the live environment!

[wonator]

This forum is full of shitposters and this thread is excelent example

[Waking One]

Um, LRMs are really not broken atm, the damage is fine. Maybe lower the arc a little but that's it. Betting it's mostly poptarts whining how they can't just sit in the same spot all game and farm kills. What a horrible community.

FInally we get a weapon sorely missing from the game back, it's not even crazy OP and everyone is bitching. Ugh.

[PhoenixFire55]

Ramien, on 21 May 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Can we get more of those chalkboard diagrams in the future?

And preferrably BEFORE those changes are implemented.

[PhoenixFire55]

Cole Allard, on 21 May 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

Dunno guys,

LRM's have allways been a part of Battletech and Mechwarrior. Whats your problem?

Since yesterday's patch we see LRM throwers again, didnt you notice that we didnt see any before? Maybe 1 every 2 matches or so.

Now you have like 1 or 2 per match, thats a fair trade. Of course, you dont take yesterday, the patchday, for example. Everybody tryed them out yesterday.

In BattleTech LRMs do not rule battlefield.
In BattleTech LRMs do 1.0 damage per missile not 2.0.
In BattleTech you are lucky if 30% of your LRMs hit.
In BattleTech you are lucky if you can take 400 LRMs with you.
In BattleTech you can't kill an assault mech with 2 volleys of LRMs.
In BattleTech LRMs don't chase you around buildings.
In BattleTech LRMs don't do orbital strikes.

Thats why BattleTech is fun to play and MWO is not.

[PhoenixFire55]

Chairman Meow, on 22 May 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

Well overall this is pretty much TT style where cover does not help against IDF at all

IDF means you are dumb-firing LRMs somewhere behind a hill without any idea if there is smth there or not. To do IDF with locks you need a clan targeting computer, which is yes... clan, and which weights about 4-5 tons.

Chairman Meow, on 22 May 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

TT wise the CT is the most probable hit location which makes sense but it needs to be toned down.

Most probable and only possible are different things.

[Rawyn]

deadlykleenex, on 21 May 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

First, weapons that don't require aim should never be "competitively viable" from a damage and hit standpoint. Second, I am struggling to determine the rational for addressing this in the first place. It's a no-win, no-value add design pursuit that contravenes the vision. The basic tension between the two extremes here is a single weapon system that is not competitively viable vs the play value for the vast majority of your player base, especially non-ECM light and medium mechs.

This is a no brainer. You might tweak the balance, but LRMs can never become "competitively viable" or it will be an expense of so much play value for so many players. I understand software design and development, so I'm pretty forgiving especially on things like patch execution. But I think this LRM balance attempt is too incredibly myopic to bite my tongue.

How comes that LRMs are always reduced to "No aim = No skill required" and why the heck shouldn't they be "competitively viable" ? Yes, you might score a hit easier than with ballistics, but I doubt it's harder to hit with lasers. And to use them effectively, there's much more involved than to get a lock and be all trigger happy. At least if your target is not just standing there in the open and enjoying the scenery.

The flight path and splash damage are a bit off right now, but the fix has been announced and is coming soon™. The amount of whine less than 24hrs after a patch has been released is just ... blargh. It shouldn't be too surprising that a lot of people want to try the updated missiles.

[Loc Nar]

The LRM fix from this last patch is... less than stellar. Can you guys please adopt a steady systematic incremental way to handle tuning balance? Watching the continual oscillating over-corrections swinging weapons systems back and forth as it wipes away the player base on each pass is getting old, depressing, and is going a long way towards eroding my confidence. Does anyone in the office really think it's a good idea to change so many variables as once, so infrequently, and to such high degrees? It does not seem like a very scientific approach, but there does seem to be a consistent pattern of this type of handling of balance issues, making it harder to continue imagining it's all gonna turn out ok.

Edited by Loc Nar, 22 May 2013 - 01:03 AM.

[Ras187]

This The 3nd time to be excatly, Lrms where Just FINE, maybe the dmg was abit low, But The speed of the lrms is now WAY to Fast. and why Change Something that Worked Fine..... Give the Lrms some Rest Please,,,,

Edited by Ras187, 22 May 2013 - 03:31 AM.